Bishop-McKean v. Washington Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 RENEE BISHOP-MCKEAN, CASE NO. C20-5416JLR-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING R&R AND v. GRANTING MOTION TO 12 AMEND WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.

Before the court are Plaintiff Renee Bishop-McKean’s objections to Magistrate Judge David W. Christel’s Report and Recommendation (R&R (Dkt. # 36)), in which she also requests leave to amend her complaint (Obj. & MTA (Dkt. # 38)). Specifically, Ms. Bishop-McKean wishes to remove Defendants Department of Corrections (“DOC”), the Washington Corrections Center for Women (“WCCW”) and Megan Dunlap. (Id. at 1.)

Defendants oppose further amendment, largely because Ms. Bishop-McKean did not attach a proposed amended pleading to indicate the changes. (Resp. (Dkt. # 41).)

1 First, the court adopts Magistrate Judge Christel’s Report and Recommendations, which recommends dismissal of DOC and WCCW with prejudice as “state agencies [that] cannot be sued under § 1983.” (R&R at 3-4 (citing Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65, 71 (1989)).) Ms. Bishop-McKean simply states that she “do[es] hereby object to the R & R” but gives no further reasoning as to why DOC or WCCW is a “person” for purposes of a § 1983 civil rights action. (See Obj. & MTA at 2.) The court concludes that Ms. Bishop-McKean’s objections lack merit and that Magistrate Judge Christel thoroughly addressed the arguments in his Report and Recommendation.

9 (See generally R&R.) Furthermore, the court has independently reviewed the issue and reaches the same conclusion as Magistrate Judge Christel for the same reasons.

11 Second, as to the motion to amend, the court observes that although Ms. Bishop-McKean did not attached a proposed amended pleading, she makes clear in her motion that she seeks to remove DOC, WCCW and Ms. Dunlap as defendants. (Obj. & MTA at 1.) Indeed, Ms. Bishop-McKean states that “unbeknownst to [her],” DOC and WCCW were added as defendants and “should not have been.” (Id.) She further elaborates that she has made several unsuccessful attempts to locate Ms. Dunlap. (Id. at 2.) Based on these representations, the court grants Ms. Bishop-McKean leave to amend for the limited purpose of removing DOC, WCCW and Ms. Dunlap as defendants. The court cautions Ms. Bishop-McKean that this limited grant does not allow for any other changes to the complaint.

21 Accordingly, the court OVERRULES Ms. Bishop-McKean’s objections (Dkt.

22 # 38) and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. # 36). Defendants DOC and WCCW are DISMISSED with prejudice. The court further GRANTS Ms. Bishop-McKean leave to amend for the limited purpose of removing DOC, WCCW and Ms. Dunlap as defendants. Ms. Bishop-McKean is DIRECTED to file her amended complaint within 14 days. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send copies of this order to Ms. Bishop-McKean, all counsel and Magistrate Judge Christel.

6 Dated this 15th day of March, 2021.

A 9 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge